Skip to main content

About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12
to nonstudent housing use. so, that beg the question of under what circumstances would the planning department need to be aware of that type of conversion. and i think the staff did a great job of pointing out there are only three limited circumstances. one is with the exemption from inclusionary housing requirements is taken advantage of. the other is the f.a.r. bonus, but that's only available in two of the c3 voting districts. -- zoning districts. the other is the exemption from the dwelling unit mixed requirement. that is a limited number of zoning districts as well. and i do appreciate that supervisor kim's office is clarifying the intent of the legislation in that regard, but quite frankly that's not the way it's currently drafted. a few other things i want to be clear as to what the legislation currently requires. it requires every entity that owns, operates or controls student housing to file an annual report with very extensive and proprietary information about all of its student housing, including existing student housing and on-campus student housing regardless of whether any new st
things and i encourage us to have that debate as soon as possible so i would like to hear it on the 29th. >> commissioner borden. >> yeah. i think the issue here is the fact if the supervisor can move forth without the input and we want input by that time we need to stick with the 29 because we don't have to and we heard from members of public they want the conversation here at planning. they feel it's the appropriate place to have some of the discussions and i agree exactly with that that we need to have the discussion here so that people and figure out if we need more workshops, more follow up. i think there is a lot to be discussed here. i like when we took supervisor chu's legislation and look it apart and had a number of hearings. we didn't just continue it out. we had a bunch of hearings. i don't think the decisions being made about what vote we would or wouldn't take on the 29th but i think it makes sense to hear the legislation before it gets to the board of supervisors and have our input. >> commissioner hillis. >> i just like to request too as part of the next hearing perh
street c. request for conditional use authorization. item 5, case no. 2012.0725c, 475 eucalyptus drive, request for conditional use authorization. i have no speaker cards, commissioners, for these items. >> is there any public comment on the items on the consent calendar? seeing none, commissioner moore? >> i ask that item 475 eucalyptus drive on consent, i have a couple of questions. and i think this commission needs to have instructions on how this particular use is regulated. so, i ask that it be moved. >> commissioner antonini. >> given that, i would move that we approve the other two items on the consent calendar. those being items number 3, i guess it is, and 4. >> second. >> no, it's 2 and 3. >> just to make it clear, one is 738 6th avenue and the other is 501-503 and 505-51 1 laguna. >> i second that. >> on the motion to continue items 3 and 4 -- excuse me to approve items 3 and 4, excuse me. commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >>
avenue, request for conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to january 24th, 2013. items 4a, b and c for case numbers 2009.0 724 d, 2012.0 888 d, and 2009.0 724 v at 2833 through 2835 fillmore street, mandatory discretionary reviews and variance have been withdrawn. further on your -- under your regular calendar, commissioners, item 15, case no. 2012.1 183 t and z, the amendments to planning code to establish the fillmore street ncd, there is a request from the sponsor and supervisor to continue to december 13th, 2012. and that's all i have. >> okay. is there any public comment on the items proposed for continuance? seeing none, commissioners? commissioner antonini. >> i am present. [laughter] >> and i would like to move continuance of item 1, item 2, item 3, and item -- those specified in item 15 to december 13th. >> second. >> on that motion, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> a
'm perfectly fine with that. i think it's in the details a lot of us have questions about and are completely clear about. * negative declaration i do support that move. and i think the other aspect of it is ms. hester said that if the supervisor would open it up a little bit, there may be other areas of c-e-q-a reform that we could be looking at that he hasn't thought of or haven't been brought forth by the people he's been talking to. and ms. hester might have additional in the neighborhood organizations might have additional c-e-q-a reform ideas that could be incorporated into this process. i do have a question with respect -- well, back to the original question that supervisor borden started with or other commissioners have mentioned. in terms of the process of automatically going to the board of supervisors on issues like zoning or whatever that they also have jurisdiction over , isn't the wording in the legislation such that it says the board of supervisors will be the final certification body? i didn't quite understand that language. because if we're now saying that the -- that this c
using your can calculations because you're already down pricing it to fit into the category as it is. if the unit would normally be $600,000, you're probably selling it for 200,000. i'm just throwing out some numbers, but, you know, that may be an exaggeration. but let's say 500,000 or 250, perhaps. is it thectionv there a way to still price it at what would be the right price and they could continue work out some kind of financing structure work there? payments would be aloe questionvthctionv don't what they're paying in rents or close it it, but it would be spread out over a longer period of time so their sale price ends up being more in keeping with what everyone else is getting the ownership unit for. >> should the unit go from receiptctional owner and priced at the ownership level, that would still be at the below market rate -- [multiple voices] >> yes. >> i don't know. it's an interesting concept. we can review it. >> not being discriminatory, but someone is coming in to buy a unit under the ownership. and if there is one being converted, that person who is currently in there
's attached to the building, so i want to thank the department staff for helping us to direct and design this site so that is compatible with the neighborhood, and i am available to answer any questions you might have. thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? >> there was the one speaker card. >> and thank you for connecting with her outside. commissioner borden. >> move to approve with conditions. >> second. >> on that motion commissioners commissioner. >> aye. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> commissioner aye. >> commissioner president fong. >> aye. >> that motion passes six to zero. commissioners that places you on item 15a and b at 1984 great highway. request for conditional use and the zoning administrator will consider a parking variation. >> good afternoon commissioner s. before is a conditional use authorization and change from church to child care facility and operating as growing tree childcare and providing obamacare located within the zone and residential zoning district. c
'm going to use a dr as an example. part of my project would require me to remove a tree and put in two knew trees and then to do my edition. * new trees first i'd go to dpw, go get my tree permit that nobody is paying attention. that action happened. then it comes to the planning commission. is it now that they could not file a c-e-q-a appeal because they didn't file it on the tree permit? >> again, assuming the tree permit is a discretionary action, we did a cad ex for it, the cad ex would only apply to the action if that's the only action that we had in place -- [multiple voices] >> if the information that we acted on was incomplete and there was a change to the project or further development of the project that changed those conditions, go back to go here. essentially the c-e-q-a clearance is on what we know and what we address. if we didn't address an aspect of the project because it wasn't put before us, then that becomes a new discretionary action subject to new environmental review subject to new appeals. i guess, i would imagine people would give the whole project -- i do thin
action coalition and on behalf of our 70 something members. this project was presented to us earlier in the year and to make its a brief as possible, we loved it. it's right in our sweet spot. the urbanism, fantastic, on-site affordable housing. enormous amount of bicycle parking. it is a strong and welcome addition to this evolving neighborhood. i think the benefits of this project are so obvious and so overwhelming i'm not sure exactly why i'm here except i fear physical violence from bob if i don't express these views. [laughter] >>> i don't think you should hesitate a second before approving this project. it's wonderful. >>> good afternoon, commissioners, danny campbell with the sheet workers local 104. and i echo that gentleman. this is going to be a great benefit to the community. you know, the open spaces that i saw, there's really exciting. the planner mr. guy said, it meets the goals of the transbay plan. you know, there are wonderful economic benefits with the fees it's going to bring the city. i think this is a great project so we look forward to your support. thank you. >
to creating a safe, thriving and respectful environment. when rooster tail restaurant informed us that they were proposing to expand and have an outdoor dining room patio, we became very concerned. since there were noise and pre-existing pests and rodent issues in the area. residents had valid concerns about noise, sanitation, and cleanliness. our four-block area is made up of three-fourth residences and one-fourth businesses. because we felt our concerns were not being adequately addressed a petition was started. people who lived on sutter, webster post and fillmore signed an opposition and collect $5 5 signatures. we appreciate rooster tail restaurants support of our concerns, putting up signage, and to hose and clean the outdoor patio nightly and maintain cleanliness. since this past monday i have been informing all the petition signees of these recent changes and inquiring whether they agree to these changes or wish to continue opposing. as of today, 26 signees have responded, but there has not been a consensus since some are still opposed. our actions have always been motivat
of fairness to both neighbors on both sides. and i would really suggest that you, if possible, use your office to create agreement rather than something like this that could create personal animosity between next door neighbors that will last for years. when you are in the positions you're in sitting on the commission, if you can encourage folk to reach some kind of agreement that allows them to live in harmony, i highly recommend that you do so. but please take d-r if necessary, or put this over and give them a chance to work it out. thank you very much. >> any additional speakers in favor of the d-r requestor? okay. so, project sponsor, you have five minutes. >>> commissioners, my name is alice barkley, i represent the project sponsor. first of all, this is an extremely large edition for a family. we are talking about extending the first floor about 7 feet in and the upper floor 5 feet because there is an extension in the back. as far as the top floor is concerned, we are talking about this area here which is a family-run [speaker not understood] deck in the front and in the back. the projec
, request for conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, president fong and members of the planning commission. sharon young, planning department staff. the item before you is request for conditional use authorization for an outdoor activity area to an existing restaurant located at 1963 sutter street within the nc-3 district, japantown special use district and 50-x height and bulk district. the proposal is to add outdoor area, dining table and chairs for approximately 08 square foot patio enclosed by [speaker not understood] high fence within the rear yard of the restaurant. the proposed outdoor dining area will abut common parking lot located within the mid-block area of the subject block. the restaurant has been in operation since december 2011. the current hours of operation of the restaurant are 11:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 7 days a week. in the original proposal that was the application. the proposed hours of operation was the dining outdoor patio 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. 7 days a week. the proposal would not involve interior [speaker not understood]. to date the department has rec
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12